Resolving conflict by shifting from solutions to problems

Tennis coach David Sammel uses a two-chair-and-a-box method to de-escalate personal disputes, where both parties place the issue in a physical or mental box between them to focus on shared goals (David Sammel from David’s Substack). By identifying agreements first, the coach and player avoid character attacks and instead explore specific concerns like serve technique or training schedules. This technique forces the participants to define the problem as a shared obstacle, which stops them from needing to win an argument to feel secure.

Jay A. Conger identifies a different barrier to consensus: the curse of knowledge, where experts struggle to set aside their deep familiarity with a topic when presenting to novices (Big Think). These experts often present complex solutions that fail to resonate because they assume the audience shares their background, leading to persuasive failure. Instead of jumping to a solution, Conger suggests that leaders must first define the problem from the stakeholder's perspective to ensure the proposed answer is audible to them.

These two approaches highlight a tension between structural communication and psychological alignment. While Sammel focuses on the mechanics of the conversation to keep emotions in check, Conger emphasizes the cognitive gap that prevents a message from landing. Both methods reject the common impulse to force a solution, requiring instead that the communicator prioritize the framing of the issue over the content of the answer.